And the list is growing. (which is okay)  Heck, even if we only get 2/3 
of these things done, 3.7 will have some cool stuff in it. ;-)

I forgot to mention in my previous email about the 3.7 schedule.  I 
would propose that we have a schedule more like the actual length of the 
3.6 schedule -- 6 months, rather than the initial planned length of 4 
months.  Also we could have the longer beta cycle as we had with 3.6 (6 
weeks).

So basically, we'd have ~4 months of alpha, 6 weeks of beta, and 2 weeks 
gamma.  3.7 release would be first Friday in 6 months, which would be 
April 2nd.

If people thought that was too long, we could try 5 months.  But I think 
4 months proved to be a bit rushed.

- Doug


Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

>I would like to add as a goal to have m17n in 3.7. I don't know where it
>stands exactly right now, and we might need a transition plan that takes
>more than one release, but I think we should try to at least start this
>release.
>
>BTW, the SmaCC MIT relicense doesn't yet solve all of the license issues
>with Anthonys parser, but it solves the big ones. We still need a
>relicense of the RB, at least as far as the parse nodes go, and Anthony
>to relicense his work. But I do believe we should be able to achieve
>this in 3.7.
>
>Daniel
>
>Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>This sounds like a good list to start with.  There was also an even 
>>earlier "3.7 starter list" of items that I threw out on the SqF a couple 
>>of months ago, which has some overlap with your list, but there were a 
>>few extra things on my list that you could add to yours:
>>
>>- Accufonts, to help clean up the Squeak-L licensing issue.  Also, we 
>>could consider adding the Bitstream fonts as Diego mentioned.
>>- Diego's look enhancements
>>- consider/discuss adding the ANSI compatibility changeset
>>
>>Other than that...
>>
>> > 10. Come up with *anything* regarding bug tracking. Both for the 
>>image and
>> > for packages. SM2 can help a bit.
>>
>>We could have some more specific goals here... The highest priority goal 
>>should be moving the bulk of the more mundane traffic (e.g. [closed] and 
>>[update] messages) off of the squeak-dev list.  But we need a balance of 
>>still having the important traffic on the list (or on another list) so 
>>that things can still be discussed.  I would be happy if Brent or Markus 
>>wanted to take the lead on handling this, I have plenty of other stuff 
>>to work on... :-)  Other later goals would include attaching bug 
>>reports/fixes to specific packages, etc.
>>
>>Also, at some point we discussed adding some slightly more formal sort 
>>of Proposal Process in order to help keep track of larger issues and 
>>assign responsibility, etc.  (Of course, there's plenty of other stuff 
>>on our 3.7 list already, but we can prioritize...)
>>
>>- Doug
>>
>>    
>>